I am uploading my 3 samples right now to istock. I am excited to see what happens.
You will do great on Istock...Your photos are great! Business people sell the most! So dress up and take some photos....People photos are like gold on Istock
Although the numbers that GoldBerry posted are very inspiring and enough to encourage me to start taking this venue seriously. Now only if my skills and photos were worthwile. :)
I am the one that posted the numbers, Goldberry is not into Stock Photography! :)
OOPS! You're absolutely correct. So sorry about that! :)
50 images is a lot for me. I've had my 10D since March and I only have 2300 (give or take a hundred or so) images. And like I said earlier, maybe a small fraction is worthwhile material, in my opinion but I'm sure their reviewers have much higher standards. I should probably start out small with istock et all until I feel my skill set has improved to a point where I feel comfortable with my images. I guess it's all about having enough confidence with your work as this is a very personal hobby.
You know what, besides the money these stock sites like Istock are great to improve your skills, I have gotton a lot better in the short time I have been there....The bonus is the bit of money you make....hehe
Its interesting to me that I could even make a sale, I have a few photos on dpcprints but the reality is I don't expect to sell any. Its a combination of lack of skill and lack of skill.
If I can make a few bucks that would be a bonus as I would do the work/practice anyway.
As I think about this stock business, I realize that most of my favorite shots are probably not good "stock" or not good for general situations. It really makes a huge difference in the way you shoot.
I have a couple of large trips coming up and I am going to make a concerted effort to shoot BOTH for myself and what I would consider stock shots (I work at a design firm, so I pretty much live on Getty). I'm going to use it as the test to myself whether or not I would enjoy shooting things for stock.
Thinking back over my personal photo library, I don't know how well I'd do right now. I've had my D70 since March and have almost 10,000 images compiled, but I have strayed into the habit of shooting for ME and not necessarily for the general consumption (which is why I've mostly stopped entering into the challenges here). Shooting stock, I think, is going to take some getting used to.
Hello,
I am a total newcomer to this topic, but I had a couple of questions that perhaps some people that are in on this discussion can shed some light on.
After reading thru the posts, it seems there are two camps. Roughly divided into the "images are worth a lot of money, don't sell them cheap" camp and "if all I can get for them is a buck or two, why shouldn't I at least get that" camp. My thoughts on the matter are this. Isn't there a happy medium? I mean, my images aren't the greatest, but if someone actually WANTS to use it for something, then it seems it should be worth more than just $1. Surely $10 or $20 at least, just because of the fact that they WANT it. On the other hand, I agree that most people/organizations/businesses can't pay $300 or $50,000 for each image they use. So why do all the stock companies seem to be polarized into either the "very expensive" group or the "cheap $1" group? Why isn't there a stock agency that lets the PHOTOG select their price, from a certain set. Say let them select from $1, $5, $10, $20, $30 say. Then each photog would pick a price for their image, and probably the higher quality ones would migrate to the upper end. Why hasn't that happened?
Secondly, it seems that the "very expensive" group of stock agencies make it VERY difficult to submit photos to them. They want large portfolios, or many sample images submitted, or LARGE file sizes, or something that makes it tough for the interested ameature to get in. It's kind of like "only professionals need to apply" type thing. Which then FORCES everyone else to go to the "cheap $1" companies, even if they don't want to. So, it seems like the above solution (new "intermediate company" might cure that problem too.
Anyway, that's just the thoughts of a total newcomer after looking over this thread. Anyone feel free to fill in any of the details I missed or didn't understand. Thanks for all the info folks!
There are three different situations being discussed in this thread:
1) Custom photography work for advertising/marketing firms, etc. This is not stock photography. Premium prices can be charged because a specific need is being met.
2) Rights-managed stock photography. The buyer now literally 'owns' something. They can do whatever they like with the image, knowing that nobody else will have that same image. Premium prices can be charged for these as well as they are a one-time sale.
3) Royalty-free stock photography. These are photographs for which the supply is becoming huge and the pricing becomes competitive from one site to another. I find it difficult to imagine being able to start yet another stock site and charge $10 - $20 unless all the images are top quality images or fill a specific niche. There has to be a reason for a) the photographers not to submit photos to the 'cheap' stock sites which already have a huge customer base and b) for customers not to look elsewhere for similar images.
Chad: Sounds like a good idea. Surely the people with the smarts to put togehter DPC could do something like that. And you are right, they already have a following of talented photographers... Interesting concept.
ThatCloudThere: I can see your point. It's valid. But if what some of the other people have been saying is true, that QUALITY images are getting sold for $1 along with a lot of "less quality" images, then it sure seems like there is a market for different levels. I mean, I can get a shirt from a cheap store for $5 or one from a more expensive store for $25, or one from a REALLY FANCY store for $100. They all do EXACTLY the same job, cover my chest. It's just that they LOOK better/different as they do it. So if there are people who can only afford the $1 images, or images that the photog only wants $1 for, then surely those should still be available. But I'm sure that there are also higher quality images that are worth $10. But there is NO PLACE to sell those. Therefore the photog is FORCED to sell them for only $1, or else let them sit and earn nothing. Given those choices, I think they wisely sell them for $1. But if these same photog's had the option of selling them somewhere else for $10, don't you think they would do it? And people who tried to sell the "lower quality" $1 images for $10 just wouldn't get bought. So those people would lower their prices back down.
Seems to me that using the shirt analogy again, there are only $1 and $100 stores in the stock market. Why are there no $25 stores? Does anyone know? The fact that there is nowhere to sell for those amounts (unless there is somewhere? Someone tell us if there is) FORCES everyone but the professionals to go to the $1 sites...
Seems to me that using the shirt analogy again, there are only $1 and $100 stores in the stock market. Why are there no $25 stores? Does anyone know? The fact that there is nowhere to sell for those amounts (unless there is somewhere? Someone tell us if there is) FORCES everyone but the professionals to go to the $1 sites...
Unless tied to commodities (or sharp increase in demand without increase in supply), market prices rarely go up, right?
istockphoto and dreamstime have some excellent photos on there, so it would be a strange situation for people who were paying $1 to be prepared to pay $10 for the same type of image. I'm not sure such a shift is possible, especially since supply is seriously increasing...
That being said, however, places like gettyimages are still able to charge a bunch of money for royalty-free images because of their super-high quality collections. I'm not sure how they're being affected by all of this. I'm guessing they're very worried.
Why are there no $25 shirt stores? Because there are no $25 shirts. The exact same shirt can't be sold in a $25 store and a $1 store, and since the market determines the price, the $25 shirt is now a $1 shirt.
Why are there no $25 shirt stores? Because there are no $25 shirts. The exact same shirt can't be sold in a $25 store and a $1 store, and since the market determines the price, the $25 shirt is now a $1 shirt.
No, you would not expect the same shirt to be sold for $25 in one store and $1 in another, differences would/should be small. But you still could have $25 shirts and $1 shirts in one and the same shop. If the $25 shirt has some quality that the $1 shirt does not have, a higher price could be justified. And you can still have the $100 big brand name shirt or the $1000 hand made one-of-a-kind designer shirt (probably in a different shop).
The mechanism of price differentiation currently does not exists on royalty free stock photo sites, one could think of higher prices for images which receive higher ratings, of which have higher number of downloads. Currently the income from royalty free stock sites is purely based on volume (which you might argue is driven by quality anyway).
I agree with everything you're saying, but my opinion is this:
Too late.
At one time, retailers used to make money on canned Coke, 60 watt lightbulbs and AA batteries. Now, the prices have been driven down to cost in order to maintain a competitive image.
With photography, there is little 'cost' to those who are hobbyists and would have spent the money on equipment anyhow. There is no 'lower limit' to pricing.
I don't claim to know how the digital stock photography market will mature, but I know that the $25 shirt has already been sold for a buck and there may be no going back. If you want to sell shirts for $25, fine, but they will have to be the shirts which were previously selling for much higher...
Edit: Your idea of price differentiation based on popularity is a good one, and I think this is the key. I believe dreamstime does exactly this.
A photo costs $1 until it has been downloaded 100 times, then it's $3 and so on...this may be the future of stock photography which is ironic because the 'marketability value' of the photo will actually be much lower once it's been downloaded hundreds of times.
I believe these cheap and royalty-free agencies are ripping off the photographers. The amount of money that goes into advertising and placement is outrageous. Offering up your photos for .10 each is really just giving it away to companies that will reap the financial rewards of your artistic vision. The images are what makes most ads appealing to the consumer. Your photo is what is drawing people into these adverts. Obviously, do what you like, but you're selling yourself short and perpetuating the declining value of your own skills and creativity.
hehe I am not a expert...and where is the cash you said was in my pocket....*lol*
I don't really have tips, just keep taking photos that you think would be good stock, and upload a lot...
Melissa
It took me about 4 days to be approved with my 3 samples and have since uploaded those three and about 15 more to be approved in the last several days but haven't heard back from them yet...I'm anxious to see how many 'make it'!
I'm worried about my 'isolated - white background" photos because I'm not sure which method works best...hopefully I did them okay!
I need a real studio, instead of some lamps and white paper!
hehe I am not a expert...and where is the cash you said was in my pocket....*lol*
You mean it came in and went out again, aren't you ? 3449 downloads translates to close to 700 USD right ? O.K. it's not lisegagne yet, but a good result anyway.
My wife was pleasantly surprised to find out there's a chance (albeit slight and in the distance) that this money-eating beast called photography might actually throw me a few bucks at some point!
Edit: To do the white background stuff...do you lasso and cut, or how do you do that? I've been increasing the contrast on a seperate layer, then using the wand to select the non-subject area and I make some adjustments to what is selected...then increasing lightness on the non-subject area to pure white. Does that make sense, or is there a better way?
